the freight in question was essentially intrastate in character; and (2) the use of interstate rights to justify such shipments impinged upon the state's sovereignty over intrastate commerce.
We find that there was overwhelming evidence to support the Commission's finding that the Leonard freight was essentially intrastate in character. The evidence clearly demonstrated that virtually all of the 84 truckloads shipped from January to June, 1967, originated in the Western Pennsylvania plant of Continental Can Company and were delivered to Can Pak in Philadelphia. Although Leonard sought to demonstrate some commingling with interstate cargo, the ICC had ample reason to conclude that the shipments were essentially intrastate.
The evidence presented to the Commission sharply differed from that in Jones Motor Co. v. United States, 218 F. Supp. 133 (E.D. Pa. 1963); aff'd, Highway Express Lines, Inc. v. Jones Motor Co., 377 U.S. 217, 12 L. Ed. 2d 292, 84 S. Ct. 1224, where less than 22 intrastate shipments were consolidated and commingled with 108 interstate deliveries. Similarly, the Commission could properly distinguish Leonard's operation from that which was encountered in Service, Storage and Transfer Co. v. United States, supra, note 6, where the reason for leaving the state of origin was to perform necessary operations at the company terminal.
Having determined that the operation was essentially intrastate, the Commission was faced with circumstances almost identical with those portrayed in Hudson Trans. Co. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 43 (D.N.J. 1963), aff'd sub. nom. Arrow Carrier Corp. v. United States, 375 U.S. 452, 11 L. Ed. 2d 477, 84 S. Ct. 524 (1964). Speaking for the court, Judge McLaughlin determined that where there was no incidental intrastate shipment commingled with substantial interstate cargo and no necessity to leave the state of origin, the perfunctory crossing of state lines amounted to "a deliberate, calculated method employed by those carriers to avoid the unfavorable consequence to them of their intrastate Pennsylvania traffic coming within the rightful jurisdiction of the Utility Commission of that Commonwealth." 219 F. Supp. at 49.
There is nothing in the present appeal which would remove it from the persuasive reasoning of Hudson. The authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission is predicated on the recognized federal power over interstate commerce. Where there is no such commerce, there can be no legitimate use of federal rights granted for this purpose. The Commission was warranted in concluding that to permit such operations would illegally impinge upon the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's exclusive jurisdiction over intrastate shipments.
The complaint will be dismissed.